"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. All processes are stressful. All phenomena are not-self.

I think you're the one who needs to read a little more carefully. If you read the whole talk, then you'll see how he fits it into his thesis:

"Almost any book on Buddhism will tell you that the three characteristics—the characteristic of inconstancy, the characteristic of stress or suffering, and thecharacteristic of not-self—were one of the Buddha’s most central teachings. Thestrange thing, though, is that when you look in the Pali Canon, the word for“three characteristics,” ti-lakkhana, doesn’t appear. If you do a search on anycomputerized version of the Canon and type in, say, the characteristic ofinconstancy, anicca-lakkhana, it comes up with nothing. The word’s not in the PaliCanon at all. The same with dukkha-lakkhana and anatta-lakkhana: Thosecompounds don’t appear. This is not to say that the concepts of anicca, dukkha,and anatta don’t occur in the Canon; just that they’re not termed characteristics.They’re not compounded with the word “characteristic.” The words they arecompounded with are perception, sañña—as in the perception of inconstancy, theperception of stress, and the perception of not-self—and the word anupassana,which means to contemplate or to keep track of something as it occurs. Forinstance, aniccanupassana, to contemplate inconstancy, means to look forinconstancy wherever it happens.Now, it’s true that you’ll frequently find in the Canon the statements that allthings compounded or fabricated are inconstant, that they’re all stressful. And alldhammas—all objects of the mind—are not-self. So if that’s the way things are,why not just say that these are characteristic features of these things? Why makea big deal about the language? Because words are like fingers, and you want tomake sure they point in the right direction—especially when they’re layingblame, the way these three perceptions do. And in our practice, the directionthey point to is important for a number of reasons.One is that the Buddha’s concern is not with trying to give an analysis of theultimate nature of things outside. He’s more interested in seeing how thebehavior of things affects our search for happiness. As he once said, all he taughtwas suffering and the end of suffering. The suffering is essentially an issue of themind’s searching for happiness in the wrong places, in the wrong way. We lookfor a constant happiness in things that are inconstant. We look for happiness inthings that are stressful and we look for “our” happiness in things that are notself,that lie beyond our control. The three perceptions of inconstancy, stress, andnot-self are focused on our psychology, on how we can recognize when we’relooking for happiness in the wrong way so that we can learn to look forhappiness in the right places, in the right ways. The contemplation of these threethemes, the use of these three perceptions, is aimed at finding happiness of a trueand lasting sort.

...and before anyone says that this is the interpretation Thanissaro forces on the Thai Ajahns then I will offer some quotes from Ajahn Chah, Ajaan Lee, and Ajahn Maha Boowa that indicate that they regard them as meditative techniques that take you to the goal and nothing more:

"The original heart / mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and no self, beyond birth and death. To see a self to be reborn is the real trouble of the world. True purity is limitless, untouchable, beyond all opposites and all creation."

"Atta-Anatta are Dhammas that are paired off together until the ultimate limit of the mundane relative world (Sammuti) — until the Citta is free from the Kilesas and has become a special Citta, a special person. Atta and Anatta then disappear of themselves and there is no need to drive any of them out anywhere, for there is just the purity of the Citta entire which is "Eka-Citta," "Eka-Dhamma" [25] — no duality with anything further. The word Anatta is a factor (Dhamma) of the Ti-Lakkhana [26] and someone who aims for purity, freedom and Nibbana should contemplate "Aniccam, Dukkham, Anatta" until they see and understand these Ti-Lakkhana clearly. Then it may be said that the Citta has "well gone free." Because Nibbana is not Anatta, for how can one force it to be Anatta which is one of the Ti-Lakkhana, which are the path for getting to Nibbana?"

"We may decide that nibbana is extinguished; that nibbana is null and void; that nibbana has no birth, aging, illness, or death; that nibbana is the self; or that nibbana is not-self. Actually, each of these expressions is neither right nor wrong. Right and wrong belong to the person speaking, because nibbana is something untouched by supposing. No matter what anyone may call it, it simply stays as it is. If we were to call it heaven or a Brahma world, it wouldn't object, just as we suppose names for "sun" and "moon": If we were to call them stars or clouds or worlds or jewels, whatever they really are stays as it is; they aren't transformed by our words. At the same time, they themselves don't announce that they are sun or moon or anything. They are thiti-dhamma — they simply are what they are."

The Commentary's treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. To begin with, it delineates three other "All's" in addition to the one defined here, one of them supposedly larger in scope than the one defined here: the Allness of the Buddha's omniscience (literally, All-knowingness). This, despite the fact that the discourse says that the description of such an all lies beyond the range of explanation. Secondly, the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of the All described here — as a dhamma, or object of the intellect — even though there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a "consciousness without feature" (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the "Allness of the All." Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done.

Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10).

This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to complicate the uncomplicated — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all differentiation is allayed.

If you take you, subtract out all the things which are inconstant and stressful, what is left?

MichaelThe thoughts I've expressed in the above post are carefully considered and offered in good faith.

And friendliness towards the world is happiness for him who is forbearing with living beings. -- Ud. 2:1To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness. -- Dhp 72

clw_uk wrote:Im not trying to state that he does or doesnt its just I myself have never had this impression so was just wondering what is the reason for this?

Meaby this has something to do with the accusations that many of the Thai Forest Ajahns are eternalists. Venerable Thanissaro trained in this tradition. I have always maintained that these accusations are not well founded and are based on an intellectual study of the Buddhas teachings, not in the practice of them.

Can you give us the gist of what is contained in the talks? Maybe a sentence or two?

(I can't access audio files from my current location)

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

retrofuturist wrote:Can you give us the gist of what is contained in the talks? Maybe a sentence or two?

I can hardly summarize two days retreat in two sentences... What's the most interesting for me in these talks is a Thanissaro's ability to explain as a means to the Arahantship passages which are commonly interpreted as ontological statements.

I found this excerpt from Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile :"And how is a monk a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered? There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. [12]

"Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by some brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' [13]

"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. [14] And if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass the Tathagata for that, he feels no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he feels no joy, no happiness, no elation of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he thinks, 'They do me such service at this that has already been comprehended.' [15]

In this excerpt, the Buddha appears to be very clearly distancing himself here from annihilationists, not praising them in the slightest, and is promoting the Dhamma as somthing to be practically applied, for one's own and others' welfare, for the easing of stress. After reading it I will no longer try to excessively ponder what happens after final Nibbana, because my intellect with undoubtably get it wrong!

manasikara wrote:I found this excerpt from Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile :"And how is a monk a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered? There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. [12]

"Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by some brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' [13]

"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. [14] And if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass the Tathagata for that, he feels no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he feels no joy, no happiness, no elation of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he thinks, 'They do me such service at this that has already been comprehended.' [15]

In this excerpt, the Buddha appears to be very clearly distancing himself here from annihilationists, not praising them in the slightest, and is promoting the Dhamma as somthing to be practically applied, for one's own and others' welfare, for the easing of stress. After reading it I will no longer try to excessively ponder what happens after final Nibbana, because my intellect with undoubtably get it wrong!

Dear friends,The Buddha denied He is annihilitionist, because he teaches no self. If there is no self and only aggregates, what do you annihilate? That's why in many Sutta's it often say "cessation" not destruction or annihilation.

What do you annihilate in feeling?what do you annihilate in consciousness?what do you annihilate in memory/perception?what do you annihilate in thoughts?what do you annihilate in bodies?

Only cessation of feelingOnly cessation of consciousnessonly cessation of memory/perceptiononly cessation of thoughtsonly cessation of bodies.

There is only cessation of aggregates, not annihilation of aggregates.Only cessation of attachment, not annihilation of attachment.

chandrafabian wrote:The Buddha denied He is annihilitionist, because he teaches no self. If there is no self and only aggregates, what do you annihilate? That's why in many Sutta's it often say "cessation" not destruction or annihilation.

The Buddha himself said that we could still call him an annihilationist... but only in that he recommends us to destroy the hatred, greed, and ignorance. It has nothing to do with self, or no self. It's in at least one of the suttas (Ven. Bodhi's translation).

Can you give us the gist of what is contained in the talks? Maybe a sentence or two?

(I can't access audio files from my current location)

Metta,Retro.

Returning to the topic.

While I can't quote from the talks linked to, perhaps this excerpt from the other PDF linked to will suffice to summarize Thanissaro's position on this matter. It occurs in the last paragraph of page four (4):

So remember: We’re not here to arrive at the true nature of things in and ofthemselves, aside from seeing how their behavior makes them inadequate assources for true happiness. The emphasis always points back to using theperceptions to counteract unskillful tendencies in the mind, because the issues ofthe mind are paramount.

And there is this other quote, just beyond the previously mentioned quotation, on page five:

Ajaan Fuang once had a student in Singapore who wrote him a letterdescribing how his meditation had reached the point where it was concernedsolely with seeing the three characteristics in everything he encountered. AjaanFuang had me write in reply: “Don’t focus on things outside. Keep looking backat the mind, to see what it is that keeps complaining that they’re stressful,inconstant, and not self—because the fault lies not with the things: The fault lieswith the mind that’s looking for happiness in the wrong place.”

So that’s where your attention should always be focused: on themachinations of the mind. Use whatever perceptions and means ofcontemplation that can cut through the mind’s unskillful habits, and apply themin a way that leads to the goal of the teachings: an unconditioned happinesswhere you can put all perceptions, skillful and unskillful, aside.

Understanding these, perhaps this questioning of Thanissaro's position on this matter is cleared up.

chandrafabian wrote:The Buddha denied He is annihilitionist, because he teaches no self. If there is no self and only aggregates, what do you annihilate? That's why in many Sutta's it often say "cessation" not destruction or annihilation.

The Buddha himself said that we could still call him an annihilationist... but only in that he recommends us to destroy the hatred, greed, and ignorance. It has nothing to do with self, or no self. It's in at least one of the suttas (Ven. Bodhi's translation).

Yes agree annihilating hatred, greed and ignorance, but not annihilating five aggregates.